Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will be delighted to learn that I will not be taking my full time in this slot. Without disrespecting anyone involved in the process, it has been said by someone in my office that this legislation is a bit like a mega-snoozefest. That is not to be disrespectful. It is titillating and amusing to look back at some of these old statutes and laugh at how things used to be done and so on. Obviously, no one is going to object to having them tidied up. However, it is somewhat ironic and it sums up in many ways the irrelevance of this Parliament and how out of touch it is that we are giving time to discuss this now. Undoubtedly, the Dáil will close early today. There will not be too many people speaking on this because, really, what can one say about it? At the same time, the attention of the nation is engaged with the sale of Siteserv and the controversy around that. We really should be given time to discuss that instead. While I am delighted that there is a row between the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and his former colleague, Mr. Dukes - it is nice to see that coming to the surface - we should really be using time in the House to discuss these issues rather than anything else. There is a certain irony in that situation.

We have before us a Bill in which 5,702 instruments are being revoked. All of these are secondary instruments and include the likes of a proclamation giving currency to new pieces of silver money or a proclamation providing for the election of a new Scottish peer and so on. It is grand that they are all being tidied up and scrubbed. The more interesting elements are the ones being retained. The vast majority of these relate to names and coats of arms, such as the licence to William Burton to use the surname and arms of Conyngham. We wonder what is so important about William Burton's relatives and why they get to carry the name and arms of Conyngham. Perhaps the Minister of State can enlighten us on that later on.

For me the more important matter is the retention of the historic statute in Irish law that is a proclamation against illegal warrants by some sheriffs and justices of the peace which omit to name the persons against whom they are granted. We are to retain that, and I do not have a problem with that - in fact, I am pleased - but it is a sad irony that we are maintaining that proclamation in the same week in which the Supreme Court gave a judgment on the State's application to allow evidence gathered in a way that breaches an individual's constitutional rights, and that such evidence would be admissible in court. The State's case hinged around a warrant which had been obtained by unconstitutional means. The original trial judge said that she could not consider any evidence obtained under that search warrant because the warrant had breached the defendant's constitutional rights, and correctly so. The State wanted a conviction and, therefore, went to the Supreme Court to seek a change in the law in order that the individual could be retried and convicted. The State got the law changed in what the Supreme Court judge Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman described in his dissenting judgment as an abhorrence that is unique in the entire world. I agree with him. This is an incredibly serious development. The statute that we are voting to retain, relating to sheriffs not being allowed to issue illegal warrants, is being contradicted by the Supreme Court, which is allowing the Garda to get evidence by unlawful means and to use it against citizens. It is an incredible situation. We should really be discussing these issues in the House, because this is real live Irish law that could have real implications on the lives of Irish citizens today. Mr. Justice Hardiman described the result as one achieved through gamesmanship of the worst and most cynical kind by the State.

There is a contradiction here because, at a time when we are talking about Garda reform and the need for gardaí to adhere to the best international practice, to dot i's and cross t's and to be human rights complaint and so on, the Supreme Court is saying that a garda can obtain evidence and then say she did not know that when she was getting it she was doing so by unlawful means and, further, that breaching somebody else's constitutional rights and pleading ignorance is allowable. In fact, ignorance is being rewarded in this instance. This is a grave development and, in that sense, I am keen to use this time to put on the record the seriousness of this issue. I am keen to highlight the fact that there is an irony in retaining the statute on the sheriffs and their illegal warrants, which was one of only 40, out of approximately 6,000, that are not being revoked. Yet at the same time the State is ensuring that rules can be broken.

It is also a little ironic that we are allowing time for what are in effect dead elements of statute that will never be invoked, while not allowing time for real, living, important issues such as the repeal of the eighth amendment of the Constitution. These are the real issues that we need to address and engage with the population on, rather than legislation which is in effect dead. Of course it needs to be tidied up, and I salute the efforts of people who are involved in the project. It is a worthy historical project, but it is not worthy of our time in this House when there are so many vital issues that the Government is ignoring and not allowing time for in the House.

See this speech in context